This update on the efforts to let FedEx workers organize under democratic rules was sent in by a reader. Let's encourage our Congressional delegation to get behind this bill.
From Leadership Conference on Civil Rights E-news
New Report Shows How a Legal Loophole Limits Union Organizing at FedEx Express
June 15, 2010 - Posted by Ron Bigler
As many as 100,000 workers who drive trucks and deliver packages for FedEx Express face unfair obstacles to organizing unions<http://www.civilrights.org/publications/fedex-rla-loophole/> because the company has been misclassified under federal labor laws, according to a new report<http://www.civilrights.org/publications/fedex-rla-loophole/> from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
The report, "Railroaded out of Their Rights<http://www.civilrights.org/fedex/>," explores the history of FedEx Express' coverage under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), a 1920's era labor law that was intended to regulate the railroad and airline industries. FedEx Express has lobbied aggressively to remain covered under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), while similar package-delivery companies such as UPS are covered under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Under the RLA, a union must organize all the employees who do similar work throughout an entire company simultaneously, while under the NLRA workers can organize on a location-by-location basis. As a result, even if a majority of FedEx Express workers are in favor of a union at one location, they are denied the opportunity to bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions.
"Companies that provide a similar service and that are operated in a similar way should be treated similarly under the law," said Wade Henderson, President of The Leadership Conference. "FedEx's opposition to being covered under the NLRA is not about corporate rivalry; it is about denying workers their civil right to be represented and protected by a union."
The Leadership Conference is urging members of Congress to enact the pending FAA Reauthorization Act with the language approved by the House of Representatives, which would place FedEx Express ground transportation employees under the NLRA and give them an equal opportunity to organize.m Leadership Conference on Civil Rights e-news:
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
Mott's Workers Take Stand Against Corporate Greed
Send an email to help the RWDSU members at Mott's.
On May 23, over 300 full time manufacturing workers at the Mott’s plant in Williamson, New York, were forced to strike after company executives demanded painful wage cuts while the company enjoyed a record year of $555 million in profits. Visit this page regularly for the latest news on the workers' fight for a fair contract.
Click here to send a letter to Dr. Pepper Snapple CEO Larry Youngletting him know you think his company's attempts to slash the Mott's workers benefits and pay are unacceptable.
In Battle with Dr Pepper, Workers Take on Poster Child for Corporate Greed
Good-bye Dr. Pepper, Snapple and Mott's apple sauce! Missouri is ground zero for three battles to preserve pension benefits - Mott's, Boeing and state workers. This is looking like the decade of the shrinking pension unless labor is united against the corporate raid on our money.
by Shelly Snyder | Wed, 06/16/2010 - 12:15pm
A small group of Mott’s workers, who make apple juice, apple sauce, and Clamato, traveled to Texas to confront top execs at a stockholder meeting and another group protested the company’s CEO at a Goldman Sachs symposium in New York City. Strikers also leafleted company facilities in Pennsylvania and St. Louis.
A note from the RWDSU Local 220 membership:
Day 20 on the picket line. The rain has stopped and finally all of our union brothers and sisters have warmed up in the sun. Most of us on the picket line have never been through anything like this strike.
Fear is a factor out here because Dr Pepper Snapple Group, which owns Mott’s, has played on our worst fears: the loss of everything we have worked so hard for in our lives.
But fear is only one factor! The biggest factor is the true sense of solidarity and unity amongst us. We are determined to win the battle against corporate greed.
Prior to Dr Pepper taking over, the company and the union were like a family. When the company did well, we all did well. There were many family-oriented functions sponsored by the company outside of our contract. We all felt we jointly contributed to Mott’s success.
Shortly after Dr Pepper took over, things changed—no more Easter hams, no more Christmas party, no more family functions of any kind, and, of course, no more bonuses! We were told, “there’s a new sheriff in town,” and that the only benefits we would enjoy were those that were contractual.
We became dots on their PowerPoint presentation, not the longtime dedicated and skilled employees we are. We are now seen as mere commodities, like grain, sugar, and oil. What happened to the human factor?
I have been here 12 years, and many of my co-workers have 20, 30, or 40-plus years supporting this company and its products. These people are now wondering what their lives will be like when they retire, as they watch the profits for Dr Pepper skyrocket—$555 million in 2009.
To the workers who helped them reach that phenomenal profit in a recession, Dr Pepper said thank you by cutting wages, eliminating pensions, contributing less to our 401(k), hacking away at our health care, and much more.
Dr Pepper is the poster child for corporate greed! Stand tall with us, America, and stop by our picket line. We’re out there 24 hours a day, rain or shine.
Shelly Snyder is a RWDSU Local 220 member and Mott’s label operator.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Boeing machinists reject contract; vote to strike
Whenever the economy takes a dive, you can count on corporations taking advantage of bad times to attack worker's benefits, especially health care and pensions. We all need to be ready to support the Machinists in their battle to keep a decent pension for all their members at Boeing. Their fight in our fight!
ST. CHARLES — Union machinists at Boeing's defense plants in Hazelwood and St. Charles voted overwhelmingly Sunday to reject a company contract offer and to strike.
During a two-hour meeting at the St. Charles Family Arena, members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District 837 cheered after it was announced that the membership had rejected the contract 1,548-532. The strike vote passed 1,619-459. Union officials said June 23 is the earliest a strike would begin.
The votes followed an all-out campaign by Boeing to persuade workers to support the deal, including postcards to Machinists' homes and "all-hands" meetings, a union official said Sunday.
"They went above and beyond what they ever have in any other contract to try to get the membership to buy this contract," said Gordon King, the president and directing business representative for District 837. "The membership saw through that."
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
ST. CHARLES — Union machinists at Boeing's defense plants in Hazelwood and St. Charles voted overwhelmingly Sunday to reject a company contract offer and to strike.
During a two-hour meeting at the St. Charles Family Arena, members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District 837 cheered after it was announced that the membership had rejected the contract 1,548-532. The strike vote passed 1,619-459. Union officials said June 23 is the earliest a strike would begin.
The votes followed an all-out campaign by Boeing to persuade workers to support the deal, including postcards to Machinists' homes and "all-hands" meetings, a union official said Sunday.
"They went above and beyond what they ever have in any other contract to try to get the membership to buy this contract," said Gordon King, the president and directing business representative for District 837. "The membership saw through that."
Boeing's 41/2-year proposal would have raised Machinists' salaries an average of 3.6 percent a year and would have sweetened pension benefits for those already employed by the company. But King said the contract wasn't rejected based on the economic package so much as a possible hit to retirement benefits of future workers.
Under the company proposal, workers hired after January 2012 would not be covered by the same defined pension benefit plan current workers receive but would instead receive a contribution plan similar to an enhanced 401(k).
"All across the aerospace industry, they've been taking away defined pension plans, putting in 401(k)s, then a contract or two after that, they've been taking the 401(k) away from them," King said.
King added that Boeing's contract proposal also would have forced employees to pay 100 percent of their dependents' health care if the employee is on a leave of absence that exceeds six months and would have made changes to prescription drug benefits.
Tom Gianino, a 27-year Boeing employee, said he voted to reject the contract and to strike, in part, because of the loss of pension benefits for new employees.
"I'm not going to be here, but I want to leave a legacy that we left this in better shape than when we found it," said Gianino, a materials handler who participated in the 99-day strike the Machinists waged against McDonnell Douglas in 1996.
Like many of those who attended Sunday's meeting, he wore a T-shirt that read: "A quality contract for a quality workforce." The International Association of Machinists represents 2,533 workers in the St. Louis area.
In a statement, Boeing Co. officials expressed disappointment in Sunday's vote.
"The work we perform here in St. Louis is critically important to our country and the men and women of our armed services," the company said. "The fair and equitable contract we put forward recognizes the contributions made by our union employees in terms of enhanced salary, benefits and pension."
Last week, union aerospace workers began returning to work at Boeing's C-17 assembly facility in Long Beach following a monthlong strike there. The contract included a similar contribution benefit plan to the one St. Louis-area machinists object to, company officials said.
But King said the future of the C-17 military cargo jet program is more precarious than the products built in St. Louis — namely the F-15, F/A-18 Super Hornet and the missiles plant. Local employees also do some work on the C-17.
King said there will now be a seven-day cooling off period. During that time, King can send a letter to Boeing alerting the company that workers will strike on midnight of the seventh day after receipt of that letter.
King said he planned to contact Boeing officials Sunday to notify them of the strike vote and see whether they are willing to go back to the bargaining table.
"I'll probably give them until Wednesday to go back to the table," King said. "If we don't hear anything from them by Wednesday, we will be dropping the letter to go on strike."
King said the union has a strike fund through the district and the international.
Under the company proposal, workers hired after January 2012 would not be covered by the same defined pension benefit plan current workers receive but would instead receive a contribution plan similar to an enhanced 401(k).
"All across the aerospace industry, they've been taking away defined pension plans, putting in 401(k)s, then a contract or two after that, they've been taking the 401(k) away from them," King said.
King added that Boeing's contract proposal also would have forced employees to pay 100 percent of their dependents' health care if the employee is on a leave of absence that exceeds six months and would have made changes to prescription drug benefits.
Tom Gianino, a 27-year Boeing employee, said he voted to reject the contract and to strike, in part, because of the loss of pension benefits for new employees.
"I'm not going to be here, but I want to leave a legacy that we left this in better shape than when we found it," said Gianino, a materials handler who participated in the 99-day strike the Machinists waged against McDonnell Douglas in 1996.
In a statement, Boeing Co. officials expressed disappointment in Sunday's vote.
"The work we perform here in St. Louis is critically important to our country and the men and women of our armed services," the company said. "The fair and equitable contract we put forward recognizes the contributions made by our union employees in terms of enhanced salary, benefits and pension."
Last week, union aerospace workers began returning to work at Boeing's C-17 assembly facility in Long Beach following a monthlong strike there. The contract included a similar contribution benefit plan to the one St. Louis-area machinists object to, company officials said.
But King said the future of the C-17 military cargo jet program is more precarious than the products built in St. Louis — namely the F-15, F/A-18 Super Hornet and the missiles plant. Local employees also do some work on the C-17.
King said there will now be a seven-day cooling off period. During that time, King can send a letter to Boeing alerting the company that workers will strike on midnight of the seventh day after receipt of that letter.
King said he planned to contact Boeing officials Sunday to notify them of the strike vote and see whether they are willing to go back to the bargaining table.
"I'll probably give them until Wednesday to go back to the table," King said. "If we don't hear anything from them by Wednesday, we will be dropping the letter to go on strike."
King said the union has a strike fund through the district and the international.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Good News for Doctors-to-Be—and Organized Labor—as Govt. Rules in Hospital Workers Favor
Here is some interesting reading for MU intern and residents physicians to mull over while drinking that middle of the night coffee to stay awake through the crazy hours they work. Next up for the NLRB? A decision on graduate teaching assistants, which should also interest some folks at MU.
By Jeremy Gantz
June 9, 2010
Memo to all intern and resident physicians working crazy long hours for (relatively) low pay at hospitals around the country: You are employees, and thus you have the right to form a union.
That's according to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which mediates disputes between workers seeking to unionize and employers. Late last week, it made its first major decision (PDF link) since President Barack Obama's labor-friendly recess appointments in March. Late last week, issuing a decisive (and redundant) ruling that ends a long-running dispute between a New York City hospital and its 280 intern and resident doctors.
The NLRB's reasoning was simple: Eleven years ago, "the Board held that medical interns and residents, or house staff, are statutory employees with a right to organize under the Act. That [1999] decision, which remains the law, is directly on point." Predictably, two Democrats sided with workers and a Republican sided with St. Barnabas.
That's according to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which mediates disputes between workers seeking to unionize and employers. Late last week, it made its first major decision (PDF link) since President Barack Obama's labor-friendly recess appointments in March. Late last week, issuing a decisive (and redundant) ruling that ends a long-running dispute between a New York City hospital and its 280 intern and resident doctors.
The NLRB's reasoning was simple: Eleven years ago, "the Board held that medical interns and residents, or house staff, are statutory employees with a right to organize under the Act. That [1999] decision, which remains the law, is directly on point." Predictably, two Democrats sided with workers and a Republican sided with St. Barnabas.
“This is the first time in over a decade that the question of whether resident physicians who provide patient care day in and day out in our nation’s teaching hospitals are students or employees has been addressed by the NLRB,” said Dr. Farbod Raiszadeh, president of the Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR)/SEIU Healthcare, which wants to represent Barnabas workers. “Their answer is as clear and unambiguous today as it was in 1999… Resident physicians are employees who deserve to have a voice in the workplace through full collective bargaining rights.”
The battle between the Bronx's St. Barnabas Hospital and the doctors—who "typically" make $45,000 to $60,000 each year working up to 80 hours each week, according CIR—is two years old and highlights how difficult it can be to join a union when an employer doesn't want you to—despite federal law that says you can.
The basic issue is this: Are doctors in training students or employees? Despite a clear 1999 NLRB ruling describing them as the latter, St. Barnabas said they were in fact the former. The hospital argued that since it receives federal funding for graduate medical education under a 2004, Congress had effectively reversed the 1999 ruling, as Crain's New York reported.
The timeline of interns' and residents' struggle to unionize isn't pretty. In January 2009, 89 percent the hospital to allow CIR/SEIU Healthcare to represent them. The hospital refused to recognize the union. A May 2009 Region 2 NLRB decision said the physicians had the right to unionize. The workers then held a NLRB-authorized election in June 2009—and the hospital then appealed the May decision, which caused cast ballots to be impounded.
Now that the NRLB has refused to review the regional NLRB decision, the votes can be counted and interns and residents will almost definitely join CIR/SEIU and begin negotiating a contract with St. Barnabas. Except—there's always an exception, it seems, when American workers want to unionize—that the hospital has indicated it may challenge the validity of the vote since two-thirds of those who voted last June no longer work at St. Barnabas. Which may be the case because… the hospital blocked the vote from taking effect.
"I wouldn't say this is the end of the game," hospital spokesman Steve Clarktold the New York Daily News. "We want to see what happens when we open the ballot box, and go from there."
Round and round the Barnabas battle goes, where it stops, nobody quite knows.
But while the hospital interns haven't quite found the success they've been waiting for, the worker-friendly decision is a clear victory for organized labor, which has been waiting for the NLRB to get its act together under a Democratic president.
The battle between the Bronx's St. Barnabas Hospital and the doctors—who "typically" make $45,000 to $60,000 each year working up to 80 hours each week, according CIR—is two years old and highlights how difficult it can be to join a union when an employer doesn't want you to—despite federal law that says you can.
The basic issue is this: Are doctors in training students or employees? Despite a clear 1999 NLRB ruling describing them as the latter, St. Barnabas said they were in fact the former. The hospital argued that since it receives federal funding for graduate medical education under a 2004, Congress had effectively reversed the 1999 ruling, as Crain's New York reported.
The timeline of interns' and residents' struggle to unionize isn't pretty. In January 2009, 89 percent the hospital to allow CIR/SEIU Healthcare to represent them. The hospital refused to recognize the union. A May 2009 Region 2 NLRB decision said the physicians had the right to unionize. The workers then held a NLRB-authorized election in June 2009—and the hospital then appealed the May decision, which caused cast ballots to be impounded.
Now that the NRLB has refused to review the regional NLRB decision, the votes can be counted and interns and residents will almost definitely join CIR/SEIU and begin negotiating a contract with St. Barnabas. Except—there's always an exception, it seems, when American workers want to unionize—that the hospital has indicated it may challenge the validity of the vote since two-thirds of those who voted last June no longer work at St. Barnabas. Which may be the case because… the hospital blocked the vote from taking effect.
"I wouldn't say this is the end of the game," hospital spokesman Steve Clarktold the New York Daily News. "We want to see what happens when we open the ballot box, and go from there."
Round and round the Barnabas battle goes, where it stops, nobody quite knows.
But while the hospital interns haven't quite found the success they've been waiting for, the worker-friendly decision is a clear victory for organized labor, which has been waiting for the NLRB to get its act together under a Democratic president.
Obama has hardly done anything concrete for organized labor since his inauguration, except appoint two pro-union people to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). And even that took more than a year, as Obama waited to make recess appointments to the board while Congress was out of session. Republican Senators and a few Democrats blocked Obama's appointments, leaving the board with just two members instead of five—and vulnerable to the question of whether its decisions were even valid, given that it was operating short of a quorum.
The new decision shows the board may finally be the authority labor has wanted since the onset of the George W. Bush era.
Next up on the NLRB docket, perhaps, something very much related to the Barnabas conflict: the question of whether graduate teaching and research assistants are employees under federal law, and thus can organize. On Wednesday, June 8, the NLRB dismissed (PDF link) New York University students' petition for election, noting that the students have made clear they plan on asking the Board to review a Bush-era decision “on the basis that it was wrongly decided both as a matter of law and policy.”
The new decision shows the board may finally be the authority labor has wanted since the onset of the George W. Bush era.
Next up on the NLRB docket, perhaps, something very much related to the Barnabas conflict: the question of whether graduate teaching and research assistants are employees under federal law, and thus can organize. On Wednesday, June 8, the NLRB dismissed (PDF link) New York University students' petition for election, noting that the students have made clear they plan on asking the Board to review a Bush-era decision “on the basis that it was wrongly decided both as a matter of law and policy.”
The 2003 decision was the same decision Barnabas administrators cited for believing intern and resident doctors are not actually "employees."
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)